Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Echoes the provided text back to the caller' fully and accurately describes the tool's behavior, including the side-effect-free nature and the return value. There is no hidden state, destructive action, or additional behavior to disclose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence that contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, and the core behavior is stated immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's trivial complexity, the one-parameter input schema, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing important is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'text' parameter adequately. The main description adds the operation-level meaning ('echoes back') but does not add anything beyond what the schema already provides for the parameter itself, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Echoes') and resource ('the provided text'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like 'add' and 'server_time', which serve entirely different functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or context cues, leaving the agent to infer that this is simply a utility for echoing text without any comparison to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.